Jump to content
Moped

Cold War Officially Restarted???

Recommended Posts

Russain TV last night listed potential nuclear weapons targets in the U.S. yesterday.  Starting to feel like I'm back in the days of my childhood.

After Putin's warning, Russian TV lists nuclear targets in U.S.

Reuters By Andrew Osborn,Reuters 14 hours ago 
  •  
Scroll back up to restore default view.

By Andrew Osborn

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian state television has listed U.S. military facilities that Moscow would target in the event of a nuclear strike, and said that a hypersonic missile Russia is developing would be able to hit them in less than five minutes.

The targets included the Pentagon and the presidential retreat in Camp David, Maryland.

The report, unusual even by the sometimes bellicose standards of Russian state TV, was broadcast on Sunday evening, days after President Vladimir Putin said Moscow was militarily ready for a "Cuban Missile"-style crisis if the United States wanted one.

With tensions rising over Russian fears that the United States might deploy intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe as a Cold War-era arms-control treaty unravels, Putin has said Russia would be forced to respond by placing hypersonic nuclear missiles on submarines near U.S. waters.

The United States says it has no immediate plans to deploy such missiles in Europe and has dismissed Putin's warnings as disingenuous propaganda. It does not currently have ground-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles that it could place in Europe.

However, its decision to quit the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty over an alleged Russian violation, something Moscow denies, has freed it to start developing and deploying such missiles.

Putin has said Russia does not want a new arms race, but has also dialled up his military rhetoric.

The Pentagon said that Putin's threats only helped unite NATO.

"Every time Putin issues these bombastic threats and touts his new doomsday devices, he should know he only deepens NATO's resolve to work together to ensure our collective security," Eric Pahon, a Pentagon spokesman, said.

Some analysts have seen his approach as a tactic to try to re-engage the United States in talks about the strategic balance between the two powers, for which Moscow has long pushed, with mixed results.

In the Sunday evening broadcast, Dmitry Kiselyov, presenter of Russia's main weekly TV news show 'Vesti Nedeli', showed a map of the United States and identified several targets he said Moscow would want to hit in the event of a nuclear war.

The targets, which Kiselyov described as U.S. presidential or military command centers, also included Fort Ritchie, a military training center in Maryland closed in 1998, McClellan, a U.S. Air Force base in California closed in 2001, and Jim Creek, a naval communications base in Washington state.

Kiselyov, who is close to the Kremlin, said the "Tsirkon" ('Zircon') hypersonic missile that Russia is developing could hit the targets in less than five minutes if launched from Russian submarines.

Hypersonic flight is generally taken to mean traveling through the atmosphere at more than five times the speed of sound.

"For now, we're not threatening anyone, but if such a deployment takes place, our response will be instant," he said.

Kiselyov is one of the main conduits of state television’s strongly anti-American tone, once saying Moscow could turn the United States into radioactive ash.

Asked to comment on Kiselyov's report, the Kremlin said on Monday it did not interfere in state TV's editorial policy.

(Additional reporting by Tom Balmforth and Idrees Ali in Washington; Editing by Kevin Liffey and Dan Grebler)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/putins-warning-russian-tv-lists-nuclear-targets-u-113819826.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have the Russians ever NOT had missiles pointed at us since they developed ICBM's?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or has something changed about MAD? Sure they can hit us. And we will hit them. It will not end well for either country or the rest of the world.

We have TV commentators that say stupid stuff all the time too. They also try their hardest to reveal every bit of military information they can get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Or has something changed about MAD? Sure they can hit us. And we will hit them. It will not end well for either country or the rest of the world.

We have TV commentators that say stupid stuff all the time too. They also try their hardest to reveal every bit of military information they can get.

I'll admit I'm not an authoritative source on the issue, but theoretically does the concept of hypersonic missiles change the concept of MAD? If you could hit hard enough and fast enough, the destruction may be mostly one sided.

However, "hard enough and fast enough" is a gamble no sane person would make.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

I'll admit I'm not an authoritative source on the issue, but theoretically does the concept of hypersonic missiles change the concept of MAD? If you could hit hard enough and fast enough, the destruction may be mostly one sided.

However, "hard enough and fast enough" is a gamble no sane person would make.

I draw your attention to our fleet of missile submarines to consider. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

I'll admit I'm not an authoritative source on the issue, but theoretically does the concept of hypersonic missiles change the concept of MAD? If you could hit hard enough and fast enough, the destruction may be mostly one sided.

However, "hard enough and fast enough" is a gamble no sane person would make.

Our Ballistic submarines are our #1 line of defense against these attacks. Even if we are destroyed they will immediately destroy where ever the missiles came from. Hence…. Mutually Assured Destuction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Garufa said:

Have the Russians ever NOT had missiles pointed at us since they developed ICBM's?

I thought at one time, under one of the SALT Treaties, we had mutually assured and verified, that neither side was targeting the other.  Obviously, that could probably change in a matter of a few minutes. 

1 hour ago, DaveTN said:

Or has something changed about MAD? Sure they can hit us. And we will hit them. It will not end well for either country or the rest of the world.

We have TV commentators that say stupid stuff all the time too. They also try their hardest to reveal every bit of military information they can get.

The Russian Governement controls the media.  Had Putin not wanted this subject to be aired, it wouldn't have.  I suspect that the Russians are fearful we are about to interfer with one of their allies in South America, so Putin is doing a little sabre rattling, in the reference of another "Cuban Missile Crisis".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DaveTN said:

Our Ballistic submarines are our #1 line of defense against these attacks. Even if we are destroyed they will immediately destroy where ever the missiles came from. Hence…. Mutually Assured Destuction.

Ah, of course. So, generally speaking, newer, faster, and fancier missiles do nothing to affect the concept of MAD. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

Ah, of course. So, generally speaking, newer, faster, and fancier missiles do nothing to affect the concept of MAD. 

 

Changing the concept of MAD would be having the ability to reliably shoot down missiles…every missile…every time. Someday someone will have that ability and the threat of missiles will be reduced.

There is a lot of internet arguing about what we (or anyone else) have the ability to do. Due to the speed of a missile and the time required to react; I doubt anyone could reliably knock down missiles. However we are in a time when technology changes daily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Changing the concept of MAD would be having the ability to reliably shoot down missiles…every missile…every time. Someday someone will have that ability and the threat of missiles will be reduced.

There is a lot of internet arguing about what we (or anyone else) have the ability to do. Due to the speed of a missile and the time required to react; I doubt anyone could reliably knock down missiles. However we are in a time when technology changes daily.

Star Wars!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

I lived through one Cold War and I expect to survive another. Lets face facts and the facts are if a Nuclear War starts there will be no winners but a lot of losers. Both countries would be destroyed almost imediately and both sides know that!! Along with many countries that are not even involved in the conflict. Both the United States and Russia have been Sabre rattling since the early 50's which in turn keeps other countries around the world in control. As far as NATO is concerned they are building a stronger alliance of neutral countries that would become involved if it was to become a ground war but if it goes Nuclear NATO is more or less not much of a player.

  As far as super fast Missiles, you can bet that if Russia has been working on such a weapon the United States has been working on ways to destroy them almost as soon as they are launched. There are no secrets anymore with the technology of today. I will go to bed tonight and sleep as well as I have for most of my life......................JMHO

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not at all worried about a nuclear war with Russia, nor China. I worry about Iran because their theocracy believes Allah will preserve them. Those are the kind of people that you should be worried about.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd welcome war with Russia.   It might actually mean that we could see an end to active conflict in our lifetime.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

I'd welcome war with Russia.   It might actually mean that we could see an end to active conflict in our lifetime.  

But the price we'd pay would be extremely high, maybe even extinction of our country.  Not sure I'm ready topay such a price to have peace throughout the world.  I or my children wouldn't get to enjoy it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SWJewellTN said:

I'm not at all worried about a nuclear war with Russia, nor China. I worry about Iran because their theocracy believes Allah will preserve them. Those are the kind of people that you should be worried about.

Bingo.  ThEM, and any other terrorist outfit that is able to get a nuke WILL use it...whether its a ICBM or a rusty freighter or just a bomb hidden in one of our cities...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

I'd welcome war with Russia.   It might actually mean that we could see an end to active conflict in our lifetime.  

I can’t see any war scenario that would end with peace.

Hundreds of thousands if not millions dead. Infrastructure destroyed, economy destroyed, starvation, disease. I don’t want that for my kids or Grandkids.

Do you think at the end of that war you would have only one country that wants to lead the world? Because if there are two; you still have a problem.

Unless you mean an end to active conflict by going into the afterlife. That would happen.  :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

I can’t see any war scenario that would end with peace.

Hundreds of thousands if not millions dead. Infrastructure destroyed, economy destroyed, starvation, disease. I don’t want that for my kids or Grandkids.

Do you think at the end of that war you would have only one country that wants to lead the world? Because if there are two; you still have a problem.

Unless you mean an end to active conflict by going into the afterlife. That would happen.  :)

It'd be more like billions dead. Don't forget agreements between countries to come to each other's aid. That makes them a target too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

I can’t see any war scenario that would end with peace.

Hundreds of thousands if not millions dead. Infrastructure destroyed, economy destroyed, starvation, disease. I don’t want that for my kids or Grandkids.

Do you think at the end of that war you would have only one country that wants to lead the world? Because if there are two; you still have a problem.

Unless you mean an end to active conflict by going into the afterlife. That would happen.  :)

It might mean that we actually end the bullcrap in the Middle East to focus our efforts on a war with Russia.   Neither country is going to use nukes.   And sure people might die but that is already happening.   Unlike the conflicts that we inject ourselves into in the Middle East, a WAR with Russia would actually end.   


My original statement was sarcasm.   I don't want war.   But I sure would like to stop wasting American money and American lives in places that we don't belong.  


And I never said peace.   Y'all need to stop putting words in my mouth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

It might mean that we actually end the bullcrap in the Middle East to focus our efforts on a war with Russia.   Neither country is going to use nukes.   And sure people might die but that is already happening.   Unlike the conflicts that we inject ourselves into in the Middle East, a WAR with Russia would actually end.   

Fill me in on how you think a war with Russia would have an end without using nukes?? 

What do you think will happen when either side takes out a Carrier Group?? ~7,000 lives lost in a flash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure Putin thinks ruling over a Russian / World graveyard is profitable.

Kinda like libs claiming President Trump was willing to start a nuclear exchange beginning with NoKo.

These guys are too selfish to risk their power, influence, and wealth...

Rouge actors = real fear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try to view anything on Russian TV through the lens of domestic consumption by the Russian people.

 

21 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

Neither country is going to use nukes.

Then not much is going to happen.  Realistically, every military contingency we've ever had to stop Russia involves the use of nukes.  Neither NATO or the Russian armies are ready for a sustained cross European movement like happened in the Napoleonic or World Wars.  Navies would trade some shots, but unless a carrier gets taken out, that wouldn't amount to much in the grand scheme.  We wouldn't send suicide bomber missions over Russian territory to do anything other than deliver nukes. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BrasilNuts said:

So..... where’s the list?

I want to see if I’m on it.

It really wouldn't matter.  The damage would affect everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, tnhawk said:

It really wouldn't matter.  The damage would affect everyone.

Being affected is one thing.... being vaporized is another.

Edited by BrasilNuts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

The Fine Print

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions. TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines